Comments by Brent Plater

Letter: Science takes a hit in San Francisco’s rush to dump Sharp Park

What Supervisor Mirkarmi wisely rejected was an EIR to do an EIR: which is what the King request amounted to and why it was rejected. It is an absurd waste of money to require an EIR to create alternatives that will be assessed through an EIR process anyway. The Mirkarimi legislation always intended to add restoration options created through the legislation into planned EIR processes that the recreation and parks department was required to complete. the Mirkarimi legislation simply requires that…

Letter: Science takes a hit in San Francisco’s rush to dump Sharp Park

Mr. King originally claimed that an environmental review process would not happen under the Mirkarimi ordinance, and now claims that the ordinance was amended to require such an environmental review process. Both of these statements are false. The ordinance was not amended as Mr. King suggests, because such an amendment was unnecessary: the ordinance's intent was always to require the called-for alternatives to be integrated into planned environmental review processes. There have been three amendments…

Letter: Science takes a hit in San Francisco’s rush to dump Sharp Park

Ken King makes several false statements about Sharp Park, the restoration proposal for the land, and the bill introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi to kick-start that proposal. Every environmentalist has demanded that scientific studies be conducted before any decision about Sharp Park’s future is made, including decisions about Sharp Park’s illicitly built and crumbling sea wall. The Mirkarimi bill expressly requires, based on the best scientific evidence available, that a restoration study be…

Letter: Contrary to claims, Sharp Park is economically viable

The proposal to raise prices at Sharp Park in order to reduce the losses there has been studied by the National Golf Foundation, Leon Younger and PROS consulting, and the San Francisco Budget Analyst. Without fail, these entities all concluded that, absent massive investments in infrastructure and course maintenance (10-14 million dollars worth), Sharp Park cannot simply raise prices and expect to increase revenue. There is a basic economic reason for this: whenever you raise prices for anything,…

Letter: Contrary to claims, Sharp Park is economically viable

Bruce is incorrect in suggesting the GGNRA would not want Sharp Park until after it has been restored. The GGNRA has a long history of accepting properties within its legislative boundary and then investing in these properties to enhance their remarkable values. To name just a few: Crissy Field, Lands End, & Muir Beach have all had substantial restoration project occur within the last 10 years using a mix of private, public, and foundation monies to fund the work. And let's not forget Mori Point.…

Letter: Contrary to claims, Sharp Park is economically viable

Ken King has posted many false statements on this website, and at least now he is starting to admit it. He now admits that an EIR will be conducted, even though he denied it previously. There has been no change to the legislative language in the meantime. He now admits that information about scientific and financial studies about Sharp Park need to be conducted before political deals are cut about the future of the land, even though he pushed to have it the other way around previously. There has…

Letter: Contrary to claims, Sharp Park is economically viable

Ian is correct about Sharp Park golf course's losses to the golf fund for this fiscal year, which ends June 30: they are expected to be $42,000. Ian is also correct that the losses to the golf fund only tell part of the story: Sharp Park golf course also loses money from other funds San Francisco maintains, including the capital fund, the general fund, the open space fund, and funds to create recycled water projects consistent with state law. However, the $42,000 loss anticipated for this fiscal…

Letter: Consider restoring Sharp Park

Today the Government Audit and Oversight Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 3-0 in favor of a restoration planning process at Sharp Park.